ML19289E879
| ML19289E879 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1979 |
| From: | Bixel D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| IEB-79-07, IEB-79-7, NUDOCS 7905290278 | |
| Download: ML19289E879 (7) | |
Text
..
CORSumBIS Power Company General Offices 212 West Michigan Avenue. Jackson, Michsgan 49201. Area Code 517788-0550 May b, 1979 Mr Ja=es G Keppler Office of Inspection and Enforce =ent Pegion III US Nuclear Eegulatory Cor::=ission 799 Recsevelt Road Clen Ellyn, IL 60137 DOCKET 50-155 - LICENSE DPR BIG ROCK POINT PLA." - ADDITICNAL RESPONSE TO IE BULLE'"IN 79-07:
SE!SMIC ANALYSES Const=ers Power Co=pany's respense to the subject Bulletin with respect to Big Rock Point was submitted by letter dated April 2h,1979 Further review has identified additional infor=ation relative to the subject Bulletin.
Ibna=ic piping analyses were perfomed for one piping syste= at Eig Rock Point, the Eeactor Depressurizatien Syste= (RDS).
"he =ethods o f s d ng responses su==arized in the subject Bulletin vere not used in this analysis ;
the =ethod used was the Square Root of the Su= of the Squans (SESS) cethod with direct algebraic su==ation of tae absolute values of closely spaced modes (10", was defined as closely spaced).
'Se ec=puter progra= used was PIPESD.
he PIPISD verificatien benchmark analyses are described in Aspen-dix F of the PIPESD users =anual which is attached for your infomatien.
David A Bixel Nuclear Licensing Ad=inistrator CC:
Director, Office of Nuclear Feactor Eegulatien Director, Office of Inspection and Enforce =ent 2048 # 1 7
1979 7905290278
PIPESD VERIFICATION BENCHMARKS F
The Appendix gives brief descriptions of several PIPESD verification benchmark analyses. Each benchmark problem contains a description of the piping system model used in the analysis and the loading conditions considered. Problem references are provided for the reader who desires more detailed descriptions of the benchmark problems. Any differences between the PIPESD structured models and the stimetural models presented in the problem references are indicated in this report.
Comparisons of PIPESD calculation results with results obtained using other..iutysis programs or experimental measurements are presented in tabular form for each benchmark analysis performed.
2048 JR2 k
84000100 bl
/
v v
v Figure F-1.
CREDE hperimental 5fodel 10 11 g
2" 12 8
16,o 13 7
o3 6
j4 1o go17 Y
15 3
g 0
i4 X
,nl8
\\
Figure F-2.
ANSYS and PIPESD Stathematical Idealization of Strr sce
- . 0' 4 8 JJ g 3
/
84000100 r.3
Benchmark Problem: 2 Type of Analysis:
Thermal Load Case and Section III Stresses Calculations for Equations 9,10,11 Comparison:
PIPESD vs ADLPIPE Problem
Reference:
ADLPIPE Static-Thermal-Dynamic Pipe Stress Analysis Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, January 1971.
This problem compares PIPESD and ADLPIPE results for a single static load case (thermal) plus results for Section III stresses for Equations 9,10, and 11. 'Ihe piping system for the sample problem is shown in Figure F-3 and is described ir <!etail in the ADLPIPE User's Manual. Because PIPESD does not have a reducer element input option, the pipe connecting nodes 12 and 23 in the PIPESD model was given properties similar to the pipe connecting nodes 13 and 14 (see Figure F-3 for the numbering scheme). Table F-2 presents comparative displacement and membe? force results for the PIPESD and ADLPIPE solutions at selected nodes. Table F-3 presents comparadve results for Sec' ion III stresses for Equations 9,10, and 11. In general, the solutions are in excellent agreement.
2048 #4
,s 84000100 F-5
+
s!
TABLE F-2.
P1PESD vs ADLP1PE COMPARATIVE RESULTS Node ADLPIPE Disp 1rcements in.
PIPESD Dfsplacements. in.
(PIPESD Model) x y
z x
y z
7
-1. 04 8 0.2 63
-1.176
-1.048 0.2633
-1.176 11
-2.123 0.
O.
-2.123 0.
O.
14
-1.260 0.168
-1.334
-1.260 0.1077
-1.334 16
-0.567 0.004 0.669
-0.5672 0.0041
-0.6691 Member End ADLPIPE Moments, in-Ib PIPESD Momentst, In-(PIPESD Model) x y
z x
y z
2-3 3
80798.
-130365.
- 88102, 80783.
-130349.
58095.
6-7 7
80798.
158833.
910.
80783.
158850.
707.5 10-11 11 0.
-124124
-87119.
O.
-124124.
87115.
13-14 14
-23953 166053.
-14139.
23962.
166055.
-14137 16-17 17 12704
-2713t0
-14791.
-12702.6, -271383
-14788.
t PIPESD moments have been translated from local (member) coordinate output to global coordinate output to correspond to AOLPIPE convention.
r048 185 84000100 F-7
Benchmark Problem: 3 Type of Analysis Response Spectrum Analysis of Pipe Network Comparison:
PIPESD vs PIPDYN and SAP-IV Problem
References:
Constructulon Industry Programs, PIPDYN: Dynamic Analysis of Piping Sys-tems, Computer Sciences Corporation, Ies Angeles, California.
Bathe, K. J., Wilson, E. L., and Peterson, F. E., SAP IV - A Structural Analysis Program for Static and Dynamic Response of Linear Systems, Report No. EERC 73-11, University of California, Berkeley, California,1973.
' Itis problem compares PIPESD and SAP IV or PIPDYN results for a response spectrum analysis of the pipe assemblage shown in Figure F-4.
'Ite problem is taken from Construction Industry Programs, PIPDYN: Dynamic Analysis or Piping Systems, and is described in detail in that manual. The single dynamic load case consists of the response spectrum shown in Figure F-5 applied simultaneously in the horizontal and vertical (= 2/3 horizontal) directions. The analysis results represent a square root of the sum of the squares summation of the lowest five modes. Table F-4 presents comparative period calculations for PIPESD and PIPDYN, and Table F-5 compares local z direction member end moments for all three programs. In general, excellent correspondence between PIPESD and PIPDYN or SAP results were obtained.
2048 JR6 84000100 F-9
8 l
8 O
I n
C
=
F?
Ea 8
=
c' T
J u
I o
m y
o u
J"f S
c
/
8 3
E
/
I 2
)
2
=
E E
t O.
k
~
s=
/
8
/
/
5
/
o
/
k
/
e tN iw E
o a
S
?
R R
S 8
s o.
o o,
o.
o.
o o
o o
o o
o D ut uopeJetasoy asuodsay
'048
)R7 2
84000100 F-11
%